Comments on: The Failure of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

By: carneadesofga

carneadesofga — Thu, 20 May 2010 01:31:58 +0000

I read earlier today that that sophist W.L.C. grants the possibility of polytheism but the Razor would eliminate that as many gods would violate it. No, it's not the number of entities but rather the ad hocness of God -period- that stakes itself.
One Scott Sullivan has a well-developed argumentation in its favor.

By: carneadesofga

carneadesofga — Wed, 19 May 2010 20:31:58 +0000

By: lord griggs1947

lord griggs1947 — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:09:05 +0000

Craig begs the question of a starting point.He os one of th etop guns of philosoph of religion and theology and the Bibllle.

By: Why Cosmological Arguments For God Actually Disprove His Existence | Urban Philosophy

Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:36:26 +0000

[...] Response to Bolt’s MisunderstandingThe Failure of the Kalam Cosmological ArgumentInductive Reasoning and the Christian [...]

By: americankhatru

americankhatru — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:33:01 +0000

Do you think its sound to say that the Kalam assumes the A-theory of time is true?
Also can anyone tell me anything that “began to exist”?

By: MitchLeBlanc

MitchLeBlanc — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:01:56 +0000

@ProoF:

Firstly, that argument isn’t sound. Secondly, it does not address the issue that the creator MUST (logically) be greater than the creation.

You may not say: The creator of the Universe MUST be greater than the Universe because God is greater than the Universe.

If Craig were to say that, he would be jumping the gun a bit. He first has to establish that the Universe was indeed created, and then further establish that it was by a being greater than the Universe. He assumes the last part, and he should not.

By: ProoF

ProoF — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:40:28 +0000

“Can you provide a logical principle that suggests so?” – Mitch

The only thing I can think of right now is that by definition, God is the greatest conceivable being ever.

If there was something greater than He is. Then that would be considered God.

Is there anything else that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Are the properties of the universe greater than God?

I would have to say that Craig says God has to be greater, because of the attributes of God.

By: MitchLeBlanc

MitchLeBlanc — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:32:13 +0000

@ProoF: If you read Craig’s book, he does extrapolate from the conclusion of the Kalam on quite shaky grounds. It is to that which I was referring.

I still do not see why the creator(s) of the universe must be beyond, or greater than it. Can you provide a logical principle that suggests so? Craig certainly has not, and until he does we have no good reason to suppose this is true.

It is obvious that parents give birth to children who can grow up to be greater in all respects.

By: ProoF

ProoF — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:49:27 +0000

“Insofar as Craig’s argument attempts to conclude that the cause of the Universe was a single personal being, that is simply a non-sequitur. It remains a possibility that several entities took part in the creation.” – Mitch

Mitch, the reason why Craig believes one being or entity is because he is a Christian. But that is not part of the Cosmological argument. It has nothing to do with the number of beings who caused the universe to begin.

“I fail to see why the creator(s) of the Universe must be beyond, or greater than it.” – you

I don’t see what’s wrong with arguing this. It just kind of makes sense. I mean, a man could create a robot that consists of more parts and everything. But who do you think is still grater? The mind which created the robot. I think the reason why Craig asserts this is because God is the greatest conceivable being ever. If something was more greater then He is. Then that, would be God.